Soldier: Honor troops like Va. Tech dead

[mmarlo 1]

So you believe that it is ok to target terrorism as long as we only go after those responsible for 9/11? The other terrorists have a get out of jail free card? And you would still have Saddam Hussein reigning in terror?

What do you think about someone who has blow up ships in Miami Harbor (in Miami, Florida) with rocket launcher, and has downed commercial airliners full of passengers?

Most people would call him a terrorist. We just let him out of jail last week and refuse to extradite him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

See my post above.

[Portlander 0]

George isn't that good with "the words" either - hence the continued reliance on slogans and sound-bite rhetoric. All of it is meaningless at the end of the day, and I agree its the actions that speak louder than the words. I'm just not sure what to think when I hear others using those soundbites repeatedly and verbatim. It seems to me that contrary to all the complaints about "liberal media" a good many people don't seem to mind being told what to think.

On the contrary - he IS good with the words, and THAT is why he relies on the soundbites. They work. he operates like a used car salesman, dropping well crafted lines here and there to affect the listener one way or another.

Bush is widely considered stupid, however, he is WILDLY successful at achieving his stated plans. Of course, you have to figure out which plans, because the ones he publically announces ON TV aren't really his real goals. Rather, if you read the policy papers giong back to the 90s, you see that the current state of affairs is EXACTLY what Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al clearly stated they wanted 10+ years ago. That is a major permanent ground force in the Middle East (and other places), with reasons to expand it into neighboring countries. Those paying attention would find that the US has signed numerous base deals with places like Uruguay and now hace large permanent gruond forces going in there, and some African ones as well.

The instability in Iraq was clearly forseeable by all, BushCo included. However, as oil prices are double that pre-invasion, and Bush, Cheney + their ilk are making some SERIOUS COIN. They couldn't do it without the instability. Everything is going according to plan. its an evil plan, but its working.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

George isn't that good with "the words" either - hence the continued reliance on slogans and sound-bite rhetoric. All of it is meaningless at the end of the day, and I agree its the actions that speak louder than the words. I'm just not sure what to think when I hear others using those soundbites repeatedly and verbatim. It seems to me that contrary to all the complaints about "liberal media" a good many people don't seem to mind being told what to think.

On the contrary - he IS good with the words, and THAT is why he relies on the soundbites. They work. he operates like a used car salesman, dropping well crafted lines here and there to affect the listener one way or another.

Hmmmm... they might have worked once - but with his job approval rating down to (frankly) pathetic levels, it seems clear that the majority of the population weren't happy "staying the course".

[Caladan 19]

1) If you fly the flag at half-mast any time we're at war, the American flag will never fly at the top of the staff.

2) "We're mourning" isn't exactly great for morale.

3) The "liberal media" aren't really liberal. Lame, after profit, and power-worshipping, yes; but that means they are supporting the administration. If they were liberal, the bullshit 'yellowcake' story would have been debunked before we decided to invade Baghdad without a plan. The media aren't reporting the good news because it is too dangerous to get out of the Green Zone.

4) Fighting terrorism is all well and good, but this misadventure in Iraq made no sense. Al-Qaeda attacks us, so we hit them and then wander over and hit someone else. And this has resulted in a regional Sunni-Shia war and has pretty much made a perfect little training camp for future domestic terrorists. Sure woulda been nice had we fixed up Afghanistan, which is now back to roughly the point it was when the Taliban was able to seize power. I want to fight terrorism, too, but silly me thinks we should actually finish one job before going half-assed at another.

5) Most soldiers are signing up either out of a sense of adventure or because it's the best way out of poverty into a better future.

[BJZags 17]

5) Most soldiers are signing up either out of a sense of adventure or because it's the best way out of poverty into a better future.

That is a very silly statement. Anyone who thinks that a soldier signs up out of adventure has never had boots on the ground outside of his own white-fenced back yard.

[Caladan 19]

5) Most soldiers are signing up either out of a sense of adventure or because it's the best way out of poverty into a better future.

That is a very silly statement. Anyone who thinks that a soldier signs up out of adventure has never had boots on the ground outside of his own white-fenced back yard.

The person who explained how 'wanting to see the world' factored into his decision to sign up served in the first Gulf War and is now a successful lawyer in NYC.

But I'm sure he didn't know what his own feelings were.

And it's completely implausible to think that if your options are work in the local coal mine or join the military, that the ability to learn new skills and travel the globe aren't at all appealing.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Caladan,

I think what BJZags was getting at was that many, many people in the military sign up out of true patriotic spirit and dedication to this country. That doesn't necessarily mean they believe whole-heartedly in the administration running the game, but they do believe in their country.

I've known a number of soldiers in my time, and not a single one ever said something as silly or juvenile as "I signed up for adventure!" The majority, I figure, have signed up for college tuition or a chance at a better job overall or due to a true sense of duty and pride in their country. Believe it or not, there are quite a few men and women in the military who'd fit into that last category.

Besides, you did say "most soldiers" and then only pointed to one example. One person's reasons or thoughts does not make it "most" by any stretch of the imagination.

[BJZags 17]

And it's completely implausible to think that if your options are work in the local coal mine or join the military, that the ability to learn new skills and travel the globe aren't at all appealing.

You've modified your "sense of adventure" statement somewhat. I took it to mean that soldiers are somehow "danger junkies" as I've too often heard from some folks down at the local coffee shop. Of course your statment of working in coal-mines v. "learning new skills" could also be negatively construed, as if there were something wrong with a "blue-collar" occupation. I suspect some coal miners make more cash then I do as a university administrator.

I personally have never bought the "military is the only option for poor people" argument in its entirety. My argument in a most simplied sense: work your way through school while accumulating college debt to improve your job options through a college education. Most college students I knew (like me) didn't have 2-pennies to rub together but still managed to graduate college.

[Robor007 0]

I agree about american casualties of war getting more attention, the Iraqi civilians in senseless tragedies, and about the profit driven LIBERAL media

All media is profit driven.

I do not agree that our administration is responsible for it, even in part. President Bush is one of the greatest presidents that has ever served in office. He has taken it upon himself, against popular opinion it would seem, to personally insure the safety of the WORLD by seeking out terrorists where they live. Terrorism is the reason for the deaths in Iraq, not the president.

You're kidding right? Bush has set this country back many years in foreign relations and world opinion. Oh, he's also run up a huge deficit that we'll be paying for many years to come.

When Osama Bin Laden used commercial airliners to bomb the World Trade Centers in New York on September 11, 2001 the amount of support that the president received for his plan of ending terrorism was overwhelming. If he doesn't follow thru with his promise then I believe that he is not a man of his word. He isn't doing what is popular, he is doing what is right.

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Where are the WMD's? Where's Osama?

I suggest that you (mmarlo) look at the list of Senators and Representatives that supported the mission in the beginning. Consider those that have changed their opinions; vote to put elected officials in their place that will either stick to their word, or make more educated decisions on issues of such a great nature before they state their opinions. I have far more respect for those elected officials that have been against this mission from the beginning than the wishy washy majority that have proven thier inability make sound judgement calls.

Yes, many current Iraq war critics originally supported the war and given the hand-picked 'evidence' they were spoon fed by the Bush administration it's not surprising.

You are living in the greatest country in the world. If you want to vioce your opinion about our duly elected administration I suggest that you do it in the voting booth.

CB

Exactly. November 2008 will be a great time in US history and if the lame duck would only get impeached before then it would be even better.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Robor007

[mawilson 2,133]

MMarlo - are you sure you're not Michael Moore?

[Caladan 19]

I gave two reasons for most, Deadpoll; the conjunction 'and' is doing some work in the sentence. Seeing the world, and as a way out of poverty/way to get marketable skills. As you acknowledged. I don't think we're disagreeing, really, except that I think 'patriotism' is sort of secondary, and I'll explain why.

And it's completely implausible to think that if your options are work in the local coal mine or join the military, that the ability to learn new skills and travel the globe aren't at all appealing.

You've modified your "sense of adventure" statement somewhat. I took it to mean that soldiers are somehow "danger junkies" as I've too often heard from some folks down at the local coffee shop. Of course your statment of working in coal-mines v. "learning new skills" could also be negatively construed, as if there were something wrong with a "blue-collar" occupation. I suspect some coal miners make more cash then I do as a university administrator.

I personally have never bought the "military is the only option for poor people" argument in its entirety. My argument in a most simplied sense: work your way through school while accumulating college debt to improve your job options through a college education. Most college students I knew (like me) didn't have 2-pennies to rub together but still managed to graduate college.

I didn't mean it in the "danger junkie" sense, nor is that something I'd generally agree with, because there's ways to get danger junkieness without joining the military.

You seem to be trying to find stuff that I'm saying is horribly insulting, and I'm not quite sure why that's your game. But coal mining is dangerous, hard work, and a career that destroys your body, and likely keeps you in one place (just because you can't mine coal where there isn't coal) and dependent on one career (that's often going overseas.) You may make more money than a university admin, but if you're 35 and the coal mine closes, you're up the creek without a paddle. No one knows this more than people who are in those communities. It's why my uncle got his real estate license to get out of coal mining. It's why a lot of those communities are dying as the young people move out to try to find more stable work, and the military is one option for a lot of those kids. (And C.'s blue collar; believe me that I am hardly interested in insulting blue collar workers, but even something with more flexibility than mining takes its toll on your health.)

It's not like it's a guarded secret that recruitment succeeds most in poor areas and rural areas. I don't see the children of the middle class enlisting in droves. Some wealthier kids do, out of patriotism, but that's pretty rare, statistically (those tend toward the service academies or ROTC), and recruitment numbers are falling, in part because a kid who wants to get ahead can get financial aid for college.

If it were just patriotism, we'd see more of the upper middle class blogger-types enlisting. I think you need patriotism + some combination of financial need & lack of options. You may disagree, but my theory seems to explain the recruiting numbers better.

[BJZags 17]

I think you need patriotism + some combination of financial need & lack of options. You may disagree, but my theory seems to explain the recruiting numbers better.

I did NOT find your "stuff" personally insulting, but thought maybe it could be construed that way. Actually, I pretty much agree with everything you've said in your explanatory post. I guess I only had a problem with your initial mentioning of your "final conclusions" without knowing the reasoning that got you to that point.

[Caladan 19]

Fair enough.

In any case, forget flying the flag at half-mast. What we really need to do to honor our troops is ensure they get the medical care they need when they get back.

[almaty 19]

Fair enough.

In any case, forget flying the flag at half-mast. What we really need to do to honor our troops is ensure they get the medical care they need when they get back.

i agree 100%...

[Robor007 0]

Fair enough.

In any case, forget flying the flag at half-mast. What we really need to do to honor our troops is figure out a way to get them out of that civil war and ensure they get the medical care they need when they get back.

Fixed!